RKMBs
 Quote:
Research finds wealth warps your perspective and makes you less ethical
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, June 20, 2013 16:58 EDTTopics: Paul Piff ♦ uc berkeley ♦ university of california at berkeley

Across multiple studies, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have found that being in the upper-class predisposes individuals to acting unethically.

Studies conducted by psychology professor Paul Piff found those who drive luxury cars were less likely to stop for pedestrians, those with more money were more likely take candy from children, and the wealthiest among us were more likely to cheat in a game with a $50 cash prize. Researchers at UC Berkeley have also found lower-class individuals are more physiologically attuned to the suffering of others than their middle- and upper-class counterparts.

Piff has come under attack because of his research on socioeconomic classes.


“I’ve gotten a lot of hate mail and vitriol from people calling me out for junk science and having a liberal agenda,” he said. “Our findings apply to both liberals and conservatives. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you’re wealthy, you’re more likely to show these patterns of results.”

Though some might assume the wealthy gained their riches due to their unethical behavior, the effect appears to work in the opposite direction. Being wealthy is what drives the unethical behavior.

Piff manipulated the rules of a Monopoly game to show even lower class people began to take on the traits of the wealthy when provided with unfairly favorable circumstances. Those given an unfair advantage surprisingly believed they deserved to win the game. They attributed their successes to their own individual skills and talents, rather than their highly favorable circumstances. A higher class person put in an unfavorable position, on the other hand, began to take on the traits of the poor.

“If I take someone who is rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well-off, they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person,” Piff explained. “Not just in this game of Monopoly, but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we’ve run where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich.”

RAW
Money can't buy happiness,but you can rent happiness for a while.
$100 for vag, $75 for oral, $175 for the Triple Threat package.
 Quote:

Piff manipulated the rules of a Monopoly game to show even lower class people began to take on the traits of the wealthy when provided with unfairly favorable circumstances. Those given an unfair advantage surprisingly believed they deserved to win the game. They attributed their successes to their own individual skills and talents, rather than their highly favorable circumstances. A higher class person put in an unfavorable position, on the other hand, began to take on the traits of the poor.

“If I take someone who is rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well-off, they become way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person,” Piff explained. “Not just in this game of Monopoly, but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we’ve run where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich.”




I couldn't help thinking of Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy in the movie Trading Places.

I seriously question the objectivity of the guy who did this study. It seems to me he started with the preconception that those with wealth have less compassion. Who does he think are the formers and major contributors to charitable organizations? The wealthy.

I've met wealthy people who are status-driven self-absorbed pricks, and I've also met many wealthy people who are generous in donations and with their personal time.
In my personal life, I would say that I'm actually more generous when I have it to spare. And I would say that compassion comes from being in contact with and aware of those less fortunate, than simply not having wealth.
If he used good methods than objectivity wouldn't matter. Plus it is by no means absolute. Some of the findings do seem to reflect real life to me. A wealthy friend accidently forgets to pay for something doesn't bother going back to pay for it when she reallizes it. The value of what she ended up stealling didn't really seem like a big deal to her because she has so much for example.
I wonder if what the professor found isn't tied to acquired narcissist syndrome.
The two don't really seem to jibe. WB's Trading Places example works for the Piff study while ANS seems to argue those traits are just there to begin with. I think both are in play though. Honesty is a value for many reguardless of finances for example.
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
those with more money were more likely take candy from children and tie young women to train tracks while twirling their mustaches and laughing.
 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
Money can't buy happiness,but you can rent happiness for a while.


Money doesn't buy happiness. It just buys all the shit that can make you happy.
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
those with more money were more likely take candy from children and tie young women to train tracks while twirling their mustaches and laughing.


That was thelothar12's way of reminding us that he:

A: is not funny
B: likes to defend rich people with strawman arguments because he believes they vote Republican.
What's little Stewie upset about now? I'm not sure if he's trying to take a shot at me or doc.
 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
What's little Stewie upset about now?


The real question is does anyone actually care?
JLA just has to post to make sure that no one forgets him.
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
those with more money were more likely take candy from children and tie young women to train tracks while twirling their mustaches and laughing.





I find the 'rich people will steal candy from babies' line laughable. Quite frankly, I won't believe any evidence from a study that uses the Monopoly game as its scientific backbone. I've played poker before for no money. I played completely differently than I do when real money is on the line. I take it less seriously and don't give a shit about how I'm playing. It's silly. I'd rather see an actual study on these people's real business practices. That will tell you if a person is an ass or not.
 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
I'm not sure if he's trying to take a shot at me or doc.


There is no difference. That's the point, doctor12
 Originally Posted By: Hybrid
 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
What's little Stewie upset about now?


The real question is does anyone actually care?


You cared enough to post. Then again, you are hooked!
© RKMBs